King residents upset at variance application

A minor variance application to demolish a bungalow and create three residential lots has some Nobleton residents up in arms.
The applicant, a group that includes Ward 2 Councillor Peter Grandilli, wants the township to allow a lower minimum lot size and frontage requirement on the property, at 6410 King Rd.
What has Nobleton’s Floyd Dickson shaking his head is the manner in which the application was made.
Mr. Grandilli’s group, which also includes Arnold Grandilli and Robert Gabriele Sr., will have their application heard at a public hearing Wednesday.
The application should be heard as a bylaw amendment and debated before council rather than the more secluded committee of adjustment, Mr. Dickson said.
“The committee of adjustment is for minor variances. It’s just not right. Obviously, this is not a minor variation,” he said. “I don’t know why Mr. Grandilli feels more privileged than everyone else.”
Mr. Grandilli was reluctant to speak on the matter, but said he is just following the processes available to him.
“I am resident and I pay taxes like everybody else. I don’t think we bypassed anything,” he said.
When an owner wants to do something to a property that isn’t permitted by the municipality’s zoning bylaw, the Planning Act permits him to apply for rezoning or a minor variance, according to the town.
Planning staff might recommend one avenue over the other, depending on the situation, but the applicant has the right to choose which process to use.
The committee of adjustment makes a decision based on a series of tests, including whether or not the variance qualifies as minor.
The decision can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the property owner or township.
Mr. Grandilli’s application seeks to lower the minimum lot area from 1,400 square metres to 1,262 square metres and the minimum frontage requirement, which is normally 24 metres.
For Nobleton’s Nancy Hopkinson, an application of this nature deserves more discussion.
“I can’t believe it is going to the committee of adjustment. I think council should debate it. At council, they get a planning report on the issue,” she said.
Potential issues include adding two more entrances to an already busy King Road and the lot’s location, outside the downtown core of Nobleton.
“I don’t think it is suitable at this moment,” Ms Hopkinson said.
What is particularly frustrating for Mr. Dickson is when he attempted a similar severance on his property on Greenside Drive, he was told it would require a bylaw amendment.
His amendment was rejected.
He didn’t know making an application to the committee of adjustment was an option.
Mr. Grandilli’s application is inconsistent with his past practices, Mr. Dickson said.
“He has voted against these types of severances in the past and now he wants to put one in. How does he justify it in his own mind?” he said.

King residents upset at variance application

A minor variance application to demolish a bungalow and create three residential lots has some Nobleton residents up in arms.
The applicant, a group that includes Ward 2 Councillor Peter Grandilli, wants the township to allow a lower minimum lot size and frontage requirement on the property, at 6410 King Rd.
What has Nobleton’s Floyd Dickson shaking his head is the manner in which the application was made.
Mr. Grandilli’s group, which also includes Arnold Grandilli and Robert Gabriele Sr., will have their application heard at a public hearing Wednesday.
The application should be heard as a bylaw amendment and debated before council rather than the more secluded committee of adjustment, Mr. Dickson said.
“The committee of adjustment is for minor variances. It’s just not right. Obviously, this is not a minor variation,” he said. “I don’t know why Mr. Grandilli feels more privileged than everyone else.”
Mr. Grandilli was reluctant to speak on the matter, but said he is just following the processes available to him.
“I am resident and I pay taxes like everybody else. I don’t think we bypassed anything,” he said.
When an owner wants to do something to a property that isn’t permitted by the municipality’s zoning bylaw, the Planning Act permits him to apply for rezoning or a minor variance, according to the town.
Planning staff might recommend one avenue over the other, depending on the situation, but the applicant has the right to choose which process to use.
The committee of adjustment makes a decision based on a series of tests, including whether or not the variance qualifies as minor.
The decision can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the property owner or township.
Mr. Grandilli’s application seeks to lower the minimum lot area from 1,400 square metres to 1,262 square metres and the minimum frontage requirement, which is normally 24 metres.
For Nobleton’s Nancy Hopkinson, an application of this nature deserves more discussion.
“I can’t believe it is going to the committee of adjustment. I think council should debate it. At council, they get a planning report on the issue,” she said.
Potential issues include adding two more entrances to an already busy King Road and the lot’s location, outside the downtown core of Nobleton.
“I don’t think it is suitable at this moment,” Ms Hopkinson said.
What is particularly frustrating for Mr. Dickson is when he attempted a similar severance on his property on Greenside Drive, he was told it would require a bylaw amendment.
His amendment was rejected.
He didn’t know making an application to the committee of adjustment was an option.
Mr. Grandilli’s application is inconsistent with his past practices, Mr. Dickson said.
“He has voted against these types of severances in the past and now he wants to put one in. How does he justify it in his own mind?” he said.

Top Stories

King residents upset at variance application

A minor variance application to demolish a bungalow and create three residential lots has some Nobleton residents up in arms.
The applicant, a group that includes Ward 2 Councillor Peter Grandilli, wants the township to allow a lower minimum lot size and frontage requirement on the property, at 6410 King Rd.
What has Nobleton’s Floyd Dickson shaking his head is the manner in which the application was made.
Mr. Grandilli’s group, which also includes Arnold Grandilli and Robert Gabriele Sr., will have their application heard at a public hearing Wednesday.
The application should be heard as a bylaw amendment and debated before council rather than the more secluded committee of adjustment, Mr. Dickson said.
“The committee of adjustment is for minor variances. It’s just not right. Obviously, this is not a minor variation,” he said. “I don’t know why Mr. Grandilli feels more privileged than everyone else.”
Mr. Grandilli was reluctant to speak on the matter, but said he is just following the processes available to him.
“I am resident and I pay taxes like everybody else. I don’t think we bypassed anything,” he said.
When an owner wants to do something to a property that isn’t permitted by the municipality’s zoning bylaw, the Planning Act permits him to apply for rezoning or a minor variance, according to the town.
Planning staff might recommend one avenue over the other, depending on the situation, but the applicant has the right to choose which process to use.
The committee of adjustment makes a decision based on a series of tests, including whether or not the variance qualifies as minor.
The decision can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the property owner or township.
Mr. Grandilli’s application seeks to lower the minimum lot area from 1,400 square metres to 1,262 square metres and the minimum frontage requirement, which is normally 24 metres.
For Nobleton’s Nancy Hopkinson, an application of this nature deserves more discussion.
“I can’t believe it is going to the committee of adjustment. I think council should debate it. At council, they get a planning report on the issue,” she said.
Potential issues include adding two more entrances to an already busy King Road and the lot’s location, outside the downtown core of Nobleton.
“I don’t think it is suitable at this moment,” Ms Hopkinson said.
What is particularly frustrating for Mr. Dickson is when he attempted a similar severance on his property on Greenside Drive, he was told it would require a bylaw amendment.
His amendment was rejected.
He didn’t know making an application to the committee of adjustment was an option.
Mr. Grandilli’s application is inconsistent with his past practices, Mr. Dickson said.
“He has voted against these types of severances in the past and now he wants to put one in. How does he justify it in his own mind?” he said.